QUALITY of the Flight Instructor VET Course
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUALITY of the Flight Instructor VET Course
A long time reader and my first post. Currently doing the Flight Instructor course on VET fee help ($32,000 + Govn taxes of 20% = around $38,000 total) and would like to know of other people's experience of doing this course in terms of quality! I'm 1/3 of the way through this course (it runs for 3 months) and it's.. in my opinion.. complete garbage. The first 3-4 weeks of this program is all "TAE theory" and we are literally just copying word for word from books completed from previous intakes. The TAE theory has nothing to do with actual flight instruction and feel like it's just "filler" to make this course eligible for government funding under VET. In class, the 2x teachers mumble off on tangents and seem not interested in what is being taught.
This module that we are all doing is "worth" (on the VET summary) around $8,000. I just can't see how it's worth so much when everybody is just copying from folders completed by previous students that graduated in the course.
Does anyone else have any experience with the VET Instructor Rating and whether your school did something similar with you?
Best,
Flying High
This module that we are all doing is "worth" (on the VET summary) around $8,000. I just can't see how it's worth so much when everybody is just copying from folders completed by previous students that graduated in the course.
Does anyone else have any experience with the VET Instructor Rating and whether your school did something similar with you?
Best,
Flying High
I did the course about 9 years ago now, before the Cert IV TAE was a requirement for part 142 schools - so it was not included, although we did study the FAA Instructor Handbook for PMI. We did an RPL for the Cert IV when it became a requirement, which was an absolute waste of time. Do you get the cert IV from the course, or just the TAE modules?
The actual instructor component I really enjoyed - although I got sick of doing the same briefs over and over (not as much as the instructors teaching the course who hear the same briefs every 3-4 weeks). We were flying 6 days a week to get through it as well, which was good for consistency. Hopefully when you get flying its worth it!
The actual instructor component I really enjoyed - although I got sick of doing the same briefs over and over (not as much as the instructors teaching the course who hear the same briefs every 3-4 weeks). We were flying 6 days a week to get through it as well, which was good for consistency. Hopefully when you get flying its worth it!
35 years instructing here, but no idea what TAE theory is? I googled it, but just got a lot of stuff about Taekwondo. Have they mentioned the Part 61 Manual of Standards yet?
"feel like it's just "filler" to make this course eligible for government funding under VET."
"$32,000 + Govn taxes of 20%"
On top of that $6400 for "admin fees", you will have indexation at the current rate of 7.1% ie $2726 added to the loan balance on 1 June. So for a $32,000 course, if you don't make any repayments by 1 June 2024, you will have a loan balance of $41,126.
You will need to earn over $75,000 pa for your repayments to make the loan balance go down at current indexation rates, otherwise it will continue to climb. I presume you checked out the GA award to work out if this would be possible on a Grade 3 instructor's wage before committing?
(Someone who has borrowed $150,000 will need to earn over $127,000 in the first year for the balance to go down by a whopping $140.)
The only way out of the trap of VET funding is to pay as much of it off as you can as a voluntary payment in May each year before the indexation is added. Good luck getting a bank loan on an instructor's wage when you have a VET debt.
If you have a problem with the quality of the course, you can complain through the Australian Skills Quality Authority Complaints about training providers | Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) I don't think that helped all those people who were scammed by Soar though.
"feel like it's just "filler" to make this course eligible for government funding under VET."
"$32,000 + Govn taxes of 20%"
On top of that $6400 for "admin fees", you will have indexation at the current rate of 7.1% ie $2726 added to the loan balance on 1 June. So for a $32,000 course, if you don't make any repayments by 1 June 2024, you will have a loan balance of $41,126.
You will need to earn over $75,000 pa for your repayments to make the loan balance go down at current indexation rates, otherwise it will continue to climb. I presume you checked out the GA award to work out if this would be possible on a Grade 3 instructor's wage before committing?
(Someone who has borrowed $150,000 will need to earn over $127,000 in the first year for the balance to go down by a whopping $140.)
The only way out of the trap of VET funding is to pay as much of it off as you can as a voluntary payment in May each year before the indexation is added. Good luck getting a bank loan on an instructor's wage when you have a VET debt.
If you have a problem with the quality of the course, you can complain through the Australian Skills Quality Authority Complaints about training providers | Australian Skills Quality Authority (ASQA) I don't think that helped all those people who were scammed by Soar though.
Last edited by Clare Prop; 5th Oct 2023 at 01:52.
A long time reader and my first post. Currently doing the Flight Instructor course on VET fee help ($32,000 + Govn taxes of 20% = around $38,000 total) and would like to know of other people's experience of doing this course in terms of quality! I'm 1/3 of the way through this course (it runs for 3 months) and it's.. in my opinion.. complete garbage. The first 3-4 weeks of this program is all "TAE theory" and we are literally just copying word for word from books completed from previous intakes. The TAE theory has nothing to do with actual flight instruction and feel like it's just "filler" to make this course eligible for government funding under VET. In class, the 2x teachers mumble off on tangents and seem not interested in what is being taught.
This module that we are all doing is "worth" (on the VET summary) around $8,000. I just can't see how it's worth so much when everybody is just copying from folders completed by previous students that graduated in the course.
Does anyone else have any experience with the VET Instructor Rating and whether your school did something similar with you?
Best,
Flying High
This module that we are all doing is "worth" (on the VET summary) around $8,000. I just can't see how it's worth so much when everybody is just copying from folders completed by previous students that graduated in the course.
Does anyone else have any experience with the VET Instructor Rating and whether your school did something similar with you?
Best,
Flying High
PS being an instructor requires significant social skills and interactions with strangers. IF you find it difficult to ask around, look for the best schools, find out if they employ trainees etc, then you will probably struggle with the social aspects of instructing in general.
Last edited by 43Inches; 5th Oct 2023 at 02:09.
I feel really sorry for you. My only advice is to get out of it and cut your losses. A self funded course would be a heap cheaper. It is unfortunate that VET fees seem like a free loan but they aren’t. Clare summed it up pretty well.
The making of a good instructor is more dependent on the supervision they get when starting out than on the instructor rating course. That said, a good course is a great start. A crap course can be corrected by a patient and mentoring CFI.
Best of luck 🙃
The making of a good instructor is more dependent on the supervision they get when starting out than on the instructor rating course. That said, a good course is a great start. A crap course can be corrected by a patient and mentoring CFI.
Best of luck 🙃
The following 2 users liked this post by Aussie Bob:
I have a HECS debt and there was plenty to read on how it works before applying for it. Unfortunately the discount for paying up front was removed, so I do the next best thing and set aside in a savings account and then pay it off in full in the last week of May each year. Win!
A friend is an instructor and registered financial advisor and always tells them to steer clear, but many still prefer the sales pitch from an unqualified person at a Big Flying School because it is what they want to hear. s
Student debt was a $68.7 billion taxpayers problem in 2021 and is climbing steadily. Student Debt Statistics 2023 | Finder Australia
Yet still the government are dishing it out and a few people on the gravy train are getting very very rich, (remember Neel on the rich list with his $67 million?) I'm standing by here for them to flame me so we can see who they are. The Soar fiasco should have been an end to it, but too many vested interests now.
Young Rich List 2019: Neel Khokhani flies high with Soar Aviation (afr.com)
A friend is an instructor and registered financial advisor and always tells them to steer clear, but many still prefer the sales pitch from an unqualified person at a Big Flying School because it is what they want to hear. s
Student debt was a $68.7 billion taxpayers problem in 2021 and is climbing steadily. Student Debt Statistics 2023 | Finder Australia
Yet still the government are dishing it out and a few people on the gravy train are getting very very rich, (remember Neel on the rich list with his $67 million?) I'm standing by here for them to flame me so we can see who they are. The Soar fiasco should have been an end to it, but too many vested interests now.
Young Rich List 2019: Neel Khokhani flies high with Soar Aviation (afr.com)
The following users liked this post:
[Rant on]
I was recently involved in helping prepare a qualified G3 (who had completed his rating at a VET school but had not done any work after graduating) for his first rating renewal because, (he said), the school where he did his training had told him they were too busy to do renewals and he would get a renewal faster if he could get someone else to do it.
I was stunned that his briefings were all just reciting from a standard powerpoint and script that he had been given in the course. Apparently all the student's briefing material was provided to them as part of the course (handouts, power points etc) and they just had to get up and parrot them back. He was unprepared for any questions on the material that involved him having a more than superficial grasp of the theory or that didn't appear in his pre-packaged lesson. He could not brief on anything that didn't fit into the standard training sequence. He could not brief without a projector. His first briefing to me had me sitting next to him while he showed me the presentation and read the slides from his tablet.
His flying, demonstrations, pattering etc were not great either, (although to be fair he had not done much flying, and no instructing, since he graduated).
I am pretty sure he said his course had only involved 35hrs total flight time and that it cost in excess of $30k.
I believe as a G3 trainee, if you want to gain the qualification, you bloody well better be able to give a briefing of your own material, (material you have been taught to prepare yourself and deliver competently and be able to do it without a powerpoint projector if required). You should be able to answer questions on the material that go into more depth and show a reasonable grasp of the theory.
I also would recommend if you want to be employable you will have undertaken a minimum of 50hrs flight time in the course and should be able to reasonably fly and patter to a reasonable standard.
I can guarantee you there are schools out there where you will get this, and, assuming you don't require remedial flying, you will probably get some change out of $30k (although you will have to pay for the training as you go - not upfront but as you progress).
This poor fellow is poorly prepared to be an instructor, as a rated instructor, his level of instruction would be at the standard of some FI trainees at other schools and he will struggle to get work as an instructor (the school he attended wouldn't even do his renewal, let alone employ him) and he now has a debt that will cost him more over time. This is not his fault. Meanwhile, my tax dollars have gone into the pocket of the training school he attended.
I am disappointed that there are poorly trained instructors going into the industry. It is not their fault they are not well trained. It does not however bode well for the quality of pilots overall going into the future, it is unfair on the the person who has done such a course and is a ripoff of the government (and ultimately) taxpayers.
I am sure there are VET FI courses where the standards are higher than this fellow's - I am not saying they are all like this, but, if you are looking as a new pilot to do an instructor rating, please do not be taken in by glossy brochures and quick 35 hour flying courses.
They may be cheaper up front (because you don't pay until later) and quick to complete but - if you want to actually be a decent instructor and want value for money and be more employable, ask around about the reputation of schools (and don't just talk to people at that school!) prior to signing up.
You also may find schools, where you have to pay as you go (rather than VET), that may ultimately be cheaper overall and better quality. VET is a great drawcard but look at the course cost and ask yourself, why are they charging more than schools that charge as you go and why do they give you less flying time?
[Rant off]
I was recently involved in helping prepare a qualified G3 (who had completed his rating at a VET school but had not done any work after graduating) for his first rating renewal because, (he said), the school where he did his training had told him they were too busy to do renewals and he would get a renewal faster if he could get someone else to do it.
I was stunned that his briefings were all just reciting from a standard powerpoint and script that he had been given in the course. Apparently all the student's briefing material was provided to them as part of the course (handouts, power points etc) and they just had to get up and parrot them back. He was unprepared for any questions on the material that involved him having a more than superficial grasp of the theory or that didn't appear in his pre-packaged lesson. He could not brief on anything that didn't fit into the standard training sequence. He could not brief without a projector. His first briefing to me had me sitting next to him while he showed me the presentation and read the slides from his tablet.
His flying, demonstrations, pattering etc were not great either, (although to be fair he had not done much flying, and no instructing, since he graduated).
I am pretty sure he said his course had only involved 35hrs total flight time and that it cost in excess of $30k.
I believe as a G3 trainee, if you want to gain the qualification, you bloody well better be able to give a briefing of your own material, (material you have been taught to prepare yourself and deliver competently and be able to do it without a powerpoint projector if required). You should be able to answer questions on the material that go into more depth and show a reasonable grasp of the theory.
I also would recommend if you want to be employable you will have undertaken a minimum of 50hrs flight time in the course and should be able to reasonably fly and patter to a reasonable standard.
I can guarantee you there are schools out there where you will get this, and, assuming you don't require remedial flying, you will probably get some change out of $30k (although you will have to pay for the training as you go - not upfront but as you progress).
This poor fellow is poorly prepared to be an instructor, as a rated instructor, his level of instruction would be at the standard of some FI trainees at other schools and he will struggle to get work as an instructor (the school he attended wouldn't even do his renewal, let alone employ him) and he now has a debt that will cost him more over time. This is not his fault. Meanwhile, my tax dollars have gone into the pocket of the training school he attended.
I am disappointed that there are poorly trained instructors going into the industry. It is not their fault they are not well trained. It does not however bode well for the quality of pilots overall going into the future, it is unfair on the the person who has done such a course and is a ripoff of the government (and ultimately) taxpayers.
I am sure there are VET FI courses where the standards are higher than this fellow's - I am not saying they are all like this, but, if you are looking as a new pilot to do an instructor rating, please do not be taken in by glossy brochures and quick 35 hour flying courses.
They may be cheaper up front (because you don't pay until later) and quick to complete but - if you want to actually be a decent instructor and want value for money and be more employable, ask around about the reputation of schools (and don't just talk to people at that school!) prior to signing up.
You also may find schools, where you have to pay as you go (rather than VET), that may ultimately be cheaper overall and better quality. VET is a great drawcard but look at the course cost and ask yourself, why are they charging more than schools that charge as you go and why do they give you less flying time?
[Rant off]
The following users liked this post:
The way that the government introduced the fee assistance programs to make flying cheaper has done more damage to GA than it has helped. Cheap TAFE courses, VET through money hungry tertiary providers, has all undercut what little margins the honest hard working flying schools were making. The end result is millions of dollars of wasted tax payer funds on many candidates that should never have been there in the first place. I do understand that a few actual pilots have benefited from these subsidies, but overall it seems more that many individuals have become rich from pocketing the moneys and leaving non suited candidates and the tax payer with huge debts. Yes some flying schools adapted, but especially the TAFE run cheap theory really took margins away from some good theory providers. I made some good coin off theory tuition before the mass offerings from TAFE, after that it was marginal at best to offer a proper course that thoroughly covered the subject matter and get paid for the hours you have to put in. It all leads to mass produced courses that scrape content and focus on pass rate with repetition of exam questions.
The following 2 users liked this post by 43Inches:
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
35 years instructing here, but no idea what TAE theory is? I believe they are referring to CERT IV in Training and Assessment - used to be TAE 40110 which was superseded by TAE 40116 and now is TAE 40122
I've been out of the instructing game for a few years, but i do hold the Cert IV in Training and Assessment. Never heard it referred to as TAE alone, which is basically anything under the Training and Education vocational diploma course, do you have to do the whole TAE course now as an instructor?
The good news is that if they can't find work instructing then at least that qualification can be used in other fields. Or is it some flying instructor course specific one?
The end result is millions of dollars of wasted tax payer funds on many candidates that should never have been there in the first place. I do understand that a few actual pilots have benefited from these subsidies, but overall it seems more that many individuals have become rich from pocketing the moneys and leaving non suited candidates and the tax payer with huge debts.
Instead I believe all you need to get on these courses and access to the same amount of money is a pulse, no ATAR required..
Last edited by Clare Prop; 5th Oct 2023 at 10:11.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2023
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
35 years instructing here, but no idea what TAE theory is? I googled it, but just got a lot of stuff about Taekwondo. Have they mentioned the Part 61 Manual of Standards yet?
"feel like it's just "filler" to make this course eligible for government funding under VET."
"$32,000 + Govn taxes of 20%"
On top of that $6400 for "admin fees", you will have indexation at the current rate of 7.1% ie $2726 added to the loan balance on 1 June. So for a $32,000 course, if you don't make any repayments by 1 June 2024, you will have a loan balance of $41,126.
You will need to earn over $75,000 pa for your repayments to make the loan balance go down at current indexation rates, otherwise it will continue to climb. I presume you checked out the GA award to work out if this would be possible on a Grade 3 instructor's wage before committing?
(Someone who has borrowed $150,000 will need to earn over $127,000 in the first year for the balance to go down by a whopping $140.)
The only way out of the trap of VET funding is to pay as much of it off as you can as a voluntary payment in May each year before the indexation is added. Good luck getting a bank loan on an instructor's wage when you have a VET debt.
"feel like it's just "filler" to make this course eligible for government funding under VET."
"$32,000 + Govn taxes of 20%"
On top of that $6400 for "admin fees", you will have indexation at the current rate of 7.1% ie $2726 added to the loan balance on 1 June. So for a $32,000 course, if you don't make any repayments by 1 June 2024, you will have a loan balance of $41,126.
You will need to earn over $75,000 pa for your repayments to make the loan balance go down at current indexation rates, otherwise it will continue to climb. I presume you checked out the GA award to work out if this would be possible on a Grade 3 instructor's wage before committing?
(Someone who has borrowed $150,000 will need to earn over $127,000 in the first year for the balance to go down by a whopping $140.)
The only way out of the trap of VET funding is to pay as much of it off as you can as a voluntary payment in May each year before the indexation is added. Good luck getting a bank loan on an instructor's wage when you have a VET debt.
It's reasonable to have that expectation but sadly as you are learning it's not the cost but the value that matters.
As mentioned in other posts, there are a lot of providers jumping on the bandwagon.
Once they have signed you up the manna comes in from heaven and there is no reason for them to make any more effort, unlike a school where you pay as you go and can look elsewhere if it's not meeting your expectations.
If you aren't happy I provided a link in another post to ASQA.
I wish you all the best of luck - I hear almost every day people who have gone down what seems to be the easy path and realised sooner or later all that glitters is not gold.
As mentioned in other posts, there are a lot of providers jumping on the bandwagon.
Once they have signed you up the manna comes in from heaven and there is no reason for them to make any more effort, unlike a school where you pay as you go and can look elsewhere if it's not meeting your expectations.
If you aren't happy I provided a link in another post to ASQA.
I wish you all the best of luck - I hear almost every day people who have gone down what seems to be the easy path and realised sooner or later all that glitters is not gold.
Several things come to mind from the above comments.
The first is that there is typically no guarantee of getting an instructor G3 job at the end of the IR training time. A lot of schools look at an instructors course as a way of making money and keeping props turning.
The quality of the course can depend on both the flight school and the instructor running the course. Does the instructor have real flying experience? A good number of hours? Experience as an instructor? Has flown a good number of aircraft types? Has real XC experience? Has good real skills to pass on to his candidates? Is not just out of CPL and IR training himself?
A lot of schools will give the spin that the Government is giving you a 'loan that can be paid back later'. The reality is that the so called loan is with Taxpayers money., not Government money! Unless paid back pronto that loan is going to hang over your head like an axe over your neck. Try and get a house loan with a VET Fee help loan of $100K lurking in the background.
That money has to be paid back whether the candidate achieves his or her qualifications or not. There are a lot of wanna bee pilots and instructors out there with loans to repay that will never earn a buck by way of a spinning prop.
At present there are more CPL and IR pilots being trained than there are jobs available. It is true to say that go north and shake any tree and new CPL pilots will fall out of it.
The first is that there is typically no guarantee of getting an instructor G3 job at the end of the IR training time. A lot of schools look at an instructors course as a way of making money and keeping props turning.
The quality of the course can depend on both the flight school and the instructor running the course. Does the instructor have real flying experience? A good number of hours? Experience as an instructor? Has flown a good number of aircraft types? Has real XC experience? Has good real skills to pass on to his candidates? Is not just out of CPL and IR training himself?
A lot of schools will give the spin that the Government is giving you a 'loan that can be paid back later'. The reality is that the so called loan is with Taxpayers money., not Government money! Unless paid back pronto that loan is going to hang over your head like an axe over your neck. Try and get a house loan with a VET Fee help loan of $100K lurking in the background.
That money has to be paid back whether the candidate achieves his or her qualifications or not. There are a lot of wanna bee pilots and instructors out there with loans to repay that will never earn a buck by way of a spinning prop.
At present there are more CPL and IR pilots being trained than there are jobs available. It is true to say that go north and shake any tree and new CPL pilots will fall out of it.
There always has been, just as there has always been the "There's a worldwide shortage of pilots, the government will pay for it" snake oil salesmen ready to sign up yet another wannabee using OUR money. There is no justification for it and apparently no accountability in terms of numbers actually getting employed at the end of the course to qualify for the next round of funding. But good luck getting those snouts out of the trough, remember whatever minister it was in a video saying "Neel is exactly the kind of young entrepreneur this country needs"
So much money wasted on 20%"admin fees", indexation, silly uniforms, "GA Ready courses" etc that could have been spent on getting a decent chunk of command time in remote areas and a good chance of actually landing a job.
So much money wasted on 20%"admin fees", indexation, silly uniforms, "GA Ready courses" etc that could have been spent on getting a decent chunk of command time in remote areas and a good chance of actually landing a job.
The following users liked this post:
The TAE is not a requirement for the Instructor rating and is not required if you are instructing in a Part 142 school. There is a wide variety of TAE courses, ranging from outright scams, 2 weeks and $800 to 6 months and 2k (both of those are a part time load). So too is there a wide variety of Instructor Ratings, from 32 hours flying to 45 hours. Gone are the days of 30 dual/20 mutual. I doubt that candidates even check how many flying hours are included when they're googling around. Buyer beware and all.
It is rare that a candidate self funds these days, they want it all and they want it now. CPL/ME-IR/Instructor Rating, all done in about 230 hours. And you'd all be pleased to know that quite a number of these courses are pushed and promoted by government institutions, TAFE's and Uni's. And they do-not-care who signs up. The could not care less what sort of financial difficulty the student will end up in. That's probably the job of a good parent, the financial education side of things.
If a candidate is smart and secures a job at the 'right' organisation they'll actually be using that ME-IR relatively quickly, in and out in about 2 years and ready to move onto/into an airline gig.
It is rare that a candidate self funds these days, they want it all and they want it now. CPL/ME-IR/Instructor Rating, all done in about 230 hours. And you'd all be pleased to know that quite a number of these courses are pushed and promoted by government institutions, TAFE's and Uni's. And they do-not-care who signs up. The could not care less what sort of financial difficulty the student will end up in. That's probably the job of a good parent, the financial education side of things.
If a candidate is smart and secures a job at the 'right' organisation they'll actually be using that ME-IR relatively quickly, in and out in about 2 years and ready to move onto/into an airline gig.
It is rare that a candidate self funds these days, they want it all and they want it now. CPL/ME-IR/Instructor Rating, all done in about 230 hours. And you'd all be pleased to know that quite a number of these courses are pushed and promoted by government institutions, TAFE's and Uni's. And they do-not-care who signs up. The could not care less what sort of financial difficulty the student will end up in. That's probably the job of a good parent, the financial education side of things.
So why was I upset at the schools losing the lucrative theory courses, well those courses cross subsidized the flying school, they could pay for a lot of things and keep the aircraft hire costs minimal to just cover the planes. Now a flying school pretty much just has to make money on the flying side, good luck with that.... So in reality the student is still paying for those courses, its just added onto the hire rate for the aircraft now making the flying side more expensive, then you also pay the TAFE, Uni and whoever is doing the theory.
So why was I upset at the schools losing the lucrative theory courses, well those courses cross subsidized the flying school, they could pay for a lot of things and keep the aircraft hire costs minimal to just cover the planes. Now a flying school pretty much just has to make money on the flying side, good luck with that.... So in reality the student is still paying for those courses, its just added onto the hire rate for the aircraft now making the flying side more expensive, then you also pay the TAFE, Uni and whoever is doing the theory.
We all know the education system (Victoria's primary export now, following the demise of the car industry) is seriously under-funded, but it isn't just the Aviation courses providing their income - other students are getting ripped off too. It's an entire business model in itself.
My point is not so much that it is only Aviation education suffering this rort, but that it has affected the actual GA side of the industry in a very negative way. Making (rorting) money from education is nothing new, however in this case it destroyed the viability of a number of flying schools, one I was personally involved with. There were several quite successful independent schools that made good money from running profitable and respected ground theory courses. The TAFE system killed that income overnight, even reputation is trumped by insanely cheap.... Yes we got a few students after the TAFE system was involved, however course numbers dropped to a few each course run every 6 months if lucky. Before that courses were limited to the space, that is we ran a course when a room was available to teach it, and there were 3-4 rooms capable of that.
At least then you could truly choose to pay for ground theory or self study, now the components of the business that were covered by the ground courses, administration, utilities, rent etc all have to be covered by aircraft rental. So even if you choose to self study you are still covering the gap that was left by the loss of the ground courses.
At least then you could truly choose to pay for ground theory or self study, now the components of the business that were covered by the ground courses, administration, utilities, rent etc all have to be covered by aircraft rental. So even if you choose to self study you are still covering the gap that was left by the loss of the ground courses.